Saturday, May 30, 2026

No Supplier Likes Customer Concentration, But Sometimes It Cannot be Helped

Customer concentration in the hyperscaler segment is practically unavoidable, when a handful of customers represent such a large percentage of the market


In 2025, four hyperscalers (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Meta) represented as much as 70 percent of all capital investment in the technology business, for example. 


Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft control a massive portion of the world's total computing infrastructure, particularly in artificial intelligence. Together with Oracle, these hyperscalers own over 66 percent of global AI compute capacity.

source: Epoch AI 


To be sure, some suppliers (especially those which historically sell to enterprises, mid-market or small business) might not be as dependent on those few customers. 


Still, for some products (graphics processing units, high-performance memory and accelerators, for example), there are just a few big volume buyers. 


And as much as any supplier might wish to reduce reliance on just a few customers, that is hard to do in markets where a handful of buyers dominate:

  • Google: Dominates the single-largest share of pure AI compute, holding about 25 percent of global capacity. While rivals rely on Nvidia, Google’s capacity is largely driven by its proprietary Tensor Processing Units (TPUs). In the broader public cloud infrastructure market, Google Cloud holds approximately 14 percent market share

  • Microsoft: Holds an estimated 21 percent share of the global cloud infrastructure market. Through massive deployments of Nvidia GPUs and its strategic partnership with OpenAI, Microsoft accounts for an outsized share of enterprise AI workloads in the cloud

  • Amazon (AWS): Leads the global cloud computing market with 28 percent market share. While historically focused on broad, general-purpose enterprise computing, Amazon is rapidly scaling its proprietary AI chips (Trainium and Inferentia) to capture a larger portion of specialized AI computing workloads

  • Meta: Operating the largest internal compute footprint, Meta owns an estimated 10 percent of the world's total AI compute. Unlike the others, Meta's compute is largely dedicated to internal workloads, such as powering the massive recommendation algorithms for Facebook and Instagram, alongside its proprietary AI models. 


So, like it or not, customer concentration in some parts of the AI value chain is unavoidable. There are only a few “whales” on the buyer side. 


And some might argue there are similar few whales in the anchor tenant category as well. Consider the role OpenAI and Anthropic play as anchor customers for the hyperscaler compute “as a service” providers. 

source: The Information 


I Don't Know How This Changes, But it Has to Do So

In a survey two researchers  conducted in April 2025, they found that 37 percent of Americans reported having had a political breakup, mostly with friends.


That is horrific. It means the tolerance and respect for political differences a democracy might require has been widely abandoned by a significant percentage of citizens. 

 

source: Mertcan Güngör , Peter Ditto 


Of those who reported political breakups, 62 percent had a breakup with a friend (23 percent of the full sample), 40 percent with a family member (15 percent of the sample), 29 percent with a coworker (11 percent of the sample), and 10 percent with a romantic partner (4 percent of the sample), the researchers report. 


Most (56 percent) reported losing more than one kind of relationship (21 percent of the sample). 


In another survey we conducted a week before the 2024 election, 69 percent of breakups happened with a friend; 20 percent happened with a family member, five percent with a romantic partner and two percent with a co-worker. 


Most of us might instinctively recognize that political polarization can weaken a democracy because it turns fellow citizens into enemies. 


In healthy democracies, opposing sides are seen as political adversaries to compete against and at times to negotiate with.In deeply polarized democracies, the other side comes to be seen as an enemy needing to be vanquished.


The danger then is that legitimate policy compromise comes to be seen instead as moral failure. So polarization then leads to, and rewards, extreme positions. And that makes compromise much more difficult, if not impossible. 


Such polarization also erodes trust in government and leaves urgent issues unresolved, as the different factions cannot find common ground. Worse, it leads to violence. 


As for me, I have no choice but to reject polarization. That doesn’t mean accepting a “squishy middle” between the extreme positions of either dominant party. It does mean rejecting the idea that either party any longer has the “best interests of the nation” uppermost and consistently in mind.  


Friday, May 29, 2026

Is Anthropic Worth More than OpenAI?

Anthropic has raised $65 billion in Series H funding led by Altimeter Capital, Dragoneer, Greenoaks, and Sequoia Capital, valuing the company at $965 billion post-money, a level that exceeds some estimates of OpenAI valuation of $852 billion.  


The round was co-led by Capital Group, Coatue, D1 Capital Partners, GIC, ICONIQ, and XN. Significant investors in this round include AMP PBC, Baillie Gifford, Blackstone, Brookfield, D.E. Shaw Ventures, DST Global, Fidelity Management & Research Company, General Catalyst, Insight Partners, Jane Street, Lightspeed Venture Partners, MGX, NTTVC, NX1 Capital, Situational Awareness LP, T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Investment Management, Inc., and Temasek. It also includes $15 billion of previously committed investments from hyperscalers, including $5 billion from Amazon.


Strategic infrastructure partners Micron, Samsung, and SK hynix also were part of the round. 


Nobody knows whether artificial intelligence is truly a financial bubble, or, if it is, when it bursts. Comparisons to the internet bubble are made and also dismissed, but at least so far, the sometimes-parabolic moves continue.


Much hinges on perceptions of future value. 


And at least so far, nobody wants to fall behind. 


We Might Prefer Income Equality, but Some Amount of Inequality is Needed to Stimulate Supply

Most of us instinctively believe “equality” is a good thing. But there are times when inequality of income might be needed to increase supply of some desired occupations.


And, oftentimes, artificial scarcities are created to support incomes. In fact, many would argue, whatever the stated public benefits (safety, for example), most forms of professional licensing exist, in large part, to protect supplier incomes by creating scarcity.


In large part, the supply of physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals depends on whether the expected lifetime rewards exceed the costs and risks of entering the profession.


But "artificial" scarcity also seems to play a role.


In healthcare, those rewards include not only salary, but also job security, social prestige, autonomy, and meaningful work. Costs include tuition, student debt, years of education, opportunity cost, licensing hurdles, burnout, and malpractice risk.


The central question is straightforward: are the incentives large enough to justify the costs, and are training bottlenecks preventing supply from responding?


Also, are there institutional barriers that artificially create scarcity when abundance is preferred by policymakers and the public, if not desired by a particular industry?


In the United States, the answer is mixed:

  • Physician incentives are very strong, but supply is constrained by training bottlenecks that arguably are intentional

  • Nursing incentives are moderate, but worsening working conditions and burnout suppress supply

  • Technician and allied-health incentives vary widely, often creating shortages in specific specialties.


People choose healthcare careers when lifetime benefits are seen as greater than costs and other burdens.


Benefits might include:

  • High pay

  • Stable employment

  • Prestige and social respect

  • Personal fulfillment

  • Geographic mobility


Costs include:

  • Tuition and debt

  • 4 to 12 years of schooling

  • Delayed earnings

  • Licensing exams and credentialing

  • Stress and burnout


When rewards rise, more people enter. When barriers rise, supply tightens. And some of those barriers arguably are intentional. 


Physicians are among the highest-paid professionals in the U.S. Average annual earnings are about $350,000, with specialists earning substantially more, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER


Other strong incentives:

  • Exceptional social status

  • High job security

  • Professional autonomy

  • Intellectual challenge

Costs

  • Undergraduate degree (4 years)

  • Medical school (4 years)

  • Residency (3–7 years)

  • Often fellowship (1–3 years)

  • Student debt commonly exceeds $200,000

  • Delayed full earnings until early to mid-30s


The key issue is not lack of interest. There are many qualified applicants. The main constraint is the limited number of residency positions, many of which depend on Medicare-funded graduate medical education, according to NBER


That scarcity is intentional, many say. The result is that:

  • Very high compensation persists

  • Entry remains restricted

  • Specialty choice is heavily influenced by income differences

  • Shortages occur in primary care and rural practice. 


The picture for nurses is more nuanced.


Registered nurses typically receive:

  • Middle- to upper-middle-class incomes

  • Strong job security

  • Geographic flexibility

  • Shorter educational path than physicians. 


Costs include:

  • 2–4 years of education

  • Licensing requirements

  • Moderate student debt.


The primary issue is not educational cost but workplace issues:

  • Burnout

  • Shift work

  • Physical strain

  • Violence exposure

  • Staffing shortages.


Although nursing remains attractive, retention problems can cause shortages even when many people enter the field.


Related fields include:

  • Radiology technologists

  • Respiratory therapists

  • Laboratory scientists

  • Sonographers

  • Surgical technologists. 


The incentives are: 

  • Shorter training periods

  • Stable employment

  • Lower debt burdens.


The challenges include:

  • Compensation sometimes insufficient relative to specialized skills

  • Limited career advancement

  • Competition from alternative occupations. 


The results include localized shortages where wages do not adequately compensate for required skills.


The point is that shortages do not necessarily mean compensation is too low.


They often result from:

  1. Training bottlenecks

  2. Geographic maldistribution

  3. Specialty maldistribution

  4. Burnout and early retirement

  5. Regulatory restrictions. 


Study

Year

Key Finding

Link

National Bureau of Economic Research – Physician Competition: Entry and Substitution

2026

Residency caps and regulatory barriers continue to ration physician supply; mid-level providers expand more rapidly.

NBER paper

National Bureau of Economic Research – Who Values Human Capitalists' Human Capital?

2023

U.S. physicians earn about $350,000 on average; earnings materially affect specialty choice and labor supply.

NBER paper

National Bureau of Economic Research – How Does Provider Supply and Regulation Influence Health Care Market?

2013

Expanded NP and PA autonomy increases effective supply, especially in primary care.

NBER paper

National Bureau of Economic Research – Relaxing Occupational Licensing Requirements

2014

Looser NP regulations reduce prices and expand hours worked by nurse practitioners.

NBER paper

National Bureau of Economic Research – Migration Policy and the Supply of Foreign Physicians

2023

Visa waivers increase physician supply in underserved communities.

NBER paper

Current Programs and Incentives to Overcome Rural Physician Shortages

2023

Loan forgiveness, scholarships, and service obligations improve rural recruitment and retention.

Springer article

Medical Residency Subsidies and Physician Shortages

2025

Expanding residency subsidies increased primary care physician supply by roughly 4% in high-need areas.

Journal of Public Economics article


The point is that to the extent “better healthcare” relies on provider supply, the U.S. healthcare system is understaffed.


Most of the discussion about the state of healthcare seems to focus on insurance. Much less attention seems focused on increasing incentives or decreasing barriers for the supply of healthcare professionals. 


Profession

Financial Incentives

Training Costs

Main Constraint

Supply Outlook

Physicians

Very high

Very high

Residency bottlenecks

Nationally attractive, but constrained

Nurses

Moderate to high

Moderate

Burnout and retention

Cyclical shortages

Allied Health

Moderate

Low to moderate

Uneven pay and capacity

Persistent specialty shortages


Shortages seemingly occur because incentives are not fully aligned with the barriers to producing and retaining healthcare professionals.


We See It Happening, But Do Not Know "Why?"

It is too early to tell whether the trend continues, for how long and at what levels, but young men (18 to 29) are behaving in a way that is sharply different from men and women in other age groups, in terms of interest in religion, according to a survey by Gallup. 


Young men in the United States have now surpassed young women in saying religion is "very important" in their lives, a reversal from trends of recent decades. 


Gallup’s latest data, from 2024-2025, show 42 percent of young men saying religion is very important to them, up sharply from 28 percent in 2022-2023.


source: Gallup 


It probably will surprise nobody that the uptick is disproportionately driven by conservative or Republican men and women, given the secular bent of people who say they are Democrats. Religious attendance (self reported, to be sure) seems nearly twice as common among those who say they are Republicans. 


source: Gallup 


Recent news reports have been relatively uniform in discussing how the trend is playing out for the Catholic Church, for example:

  • The Washington Post: Explores how Catholicism is drawing Gen Z men who are disillusioned with modern secular culture and the casual, contemporary worship styles of "big box" churches, finding a strong appeal in traditional worship and clear doctrine. 

  • The New York Times: Highlights Gallup polling data that shows a sharp increase in the share of men under 30 who say religion is "very important" to them, rising to 42 percent. 

  • The Atlantic: Details the striking double-digit increases in adult converts at metro hubs and college campuses, noting dozens of college Catholic centers welcoming record numbers of young professionals. 

  • America Magazine: Examines Gallup data showing young men as an "emerging exception" to the overall decline of religious attendance among youth, with 40 percent of young men now attending religious services frequently. 

  • ABC 7 News San Francisco: Highlights local parishes, such as St. Dominic's, experiencing growing numbers of men in their 20s and 30s seeking peace, community, and answers in the Catholic faith. 

  • The Week: Rounds up the anecdotal "standing-room only" Easter services across major archdioceses (like Boston and Newark) driven by young adults. 

  • Fox News: Covers Bishop Robert Barron's observations of young adults "leading the charge" back to the faith and driving record-breaking numbers of rite of election participants.

  • 60 Minutes interviews Catholic bishops about rising conversions. 


Anecdotally, I have seen this at my local parish as well.


No Supplier Likes Customer Concentration, But Sometimes It Cannot be Helped

Customer concentration in the hyperscaler segment is practically unavoidable, when a handful of customers represent such a large percentage...